Sometimes authoritarian diktats glide so smoothly off the tongue they are barely perceptible to the human ear.

That was the case last week when Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic candidate for president and high-profile U.S. senator from New York, declared the end of politics.

Only a few national newspapers and news programs paid much attention, but Gillibrand had essentially said it.

Politics are dead.

“(It is wrong to) deny women … basic human rights,” she told the Des Moines Register editorial board. “I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable.”

Gillibrand wants to erase their views

The illegitimate other side here is the self-described “pro-life” opposition to legalized abortion. And one can only presume, given Gillibrand’s maximalist view, it includes those who would keep abortion legal but also impose restrictions on it.

Gillibrand added that opposition to abortion should be regarded in the same way we regard racism. In other words, critics of abortion need to be banished from the public square. They need to be treated with all the loathing and disdain we reserve for racial bigots.

They should never be granted access to polite society. Never hold corporate jobs. Never rise to any position of legitimate authority. They should be shunned and ignored and otherwise marginalized – made so radioactive that their views are no longer to be considered. Only condemned.

And that especially goes for federal judges one suspects may harbor anti-abortion views.

How is abortion not a political issue?

“Imagine saying it's OK to appoint a judge who's racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic,” said Gillibrand. “Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America, I don't think those are political issues anymore.”

There has been no more sharply divided issue in this country over the last half-century than legalized abortion. A majority of Americans support it, but a majority also either oppose or want restrictions on it. Former President Bill Clinton reflected this point of view when he said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”

To declare “case closed” on this issue, one so polarized and broadly debated, is to say Kirsten Gillibrand and those who share her point of view dictate what Americans can and cannot discuss.

Gillibrand is no better than Trump

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand meets with the Des Moines Register's editorial board on Monday, June 10, 2019, at the Register's office in Des Moines. (Photo: Kelsey Kremer/The Register)

The American left has been rightly appalled at the authoritarian impulses of Donald Trump, including his Sunday tweet storm calling the New York Times and Washington Post once again “the enemy of the people” and asking if his supporters will insist he serve a third (and unconstitutional) term.

Where is their condemnation of Gillibrand, who just last week unilaterally decided the abortion debate is over and her side won?

I wonder if she would like to explain to American Hipanics, an important constituency in the Democratic Party, that their mouths have been zipped.

Abortion has been debated rigorously in our lifetimes because it is morally ambiguous. There are no clear lines. The truth depends on how you view the fetus, how it is defined and whether it warrants protection.

All of us, pro-abortion and anti-abortion, should be conflicted about the issue because the choices are stark and have real-life consequences.

A complicated issue demands debate

Whether you believe a fetus worthy of rights or not, abortion is still a jarring act – the dismemberment and vacuuming of life that left untouched would become an independent, conscious human being.

On the flip-side, talk to doctors who worked American emergency rooms before Roe v. Wade and hear the horrors of women who came in butchered or poisoned by back-alley abortionists.

If we make abortion illegal, we shove it back to the shadows and leave it to the butchers.

With no clear lines of agreement, the issue demands discussion and ongoing access to the American conscience.

Politics is the way we deal with such disagreements in our society, with words, not clubs.

Take that away and what are we left with? “Politics by other means.”

As a leader with a high profile in American politics, Gillibrand’s comments are dangerous and should be called out. Particularly by liberals, who in these days are especially attuned to and appalled by the murmurings of authoritarians.

Phil Boas is editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic. He can be reached at phil.boas@arizonarepublic.comand 602-444-8292.